Bechtel loses bid to keep MUA off Curtis Is LNG site

The Curtis Island LNG project, which has been dogged by disputes and strikes. Photo: Glenn Hunt

Patrick Durkin and James Massola

The Fair Work Commission has rejected attempts by construction firm Bechtel to keep the Maritime Union out of the $20 billion liquefied natural gas project on Queensland’s Curtis Island, amid threats of an escalating industrial dispute.

Business groups warn that the decision shows Labor’s industrial relations laws have allowed an increasing array of unions onto major construction sites to disrupt work, despite having dubious claims to representing any workers.

The decision comes after Woodside Petroleum scrapped its $45 billion Browse LNG project in Western Australia, sparking a debate about the rising costs of resources projects.

Australian Mines and Metals Association chief executive Steve Knott said Labor’s industrial regime had allowed more unions to enter workplaces and seek to represent workers, leading to an increase in union “turf wars” over ­representation.

The MUA has urged Bechtel to accept the industrial umpire’s decision or face an escalation of industrial action. “We are the stevedoring union in this country and Bechtel are tying to bust us out of that area,’’ MUA chief Paddy Crumlin said.

“They could appeal it, that may be within their legal options, but that will be at the cost of the International Transport Workers Federation and ITF-affiliated unions moving to the next stage of mobilisation against their actions on Curtis Island. The ball is in their court,” Mr Crumlin warned.

The project has been dogged by industrial disputes and strikes, with workplace action over safety and contracts, including by the MUA, which has been pushing for one of two local stevedoring companies to perform the work.

Mr Knott said workers on Curtis Island would also be represented by the Australian Workers Union and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union.

“Pre the Fair Work regime, there were a small number of unions on work sites. Now we are seeing across the sector a large number of unions seeking access to work sites more regularly, largely on union membership fishing expeditions,’’ Mr Knott said. “Left-wing unions like the MUA and the CFMEU are trying to poach members.”

Too much latitude for unions

Business groups have criticised Labor’s industrial relations system for giving unions too much latitude on right of entry provisions, arguing that the changes make it easier for unions to recruit new members.

Under the laws, unions are entitled to enter workplaces to hold discussions with potential members and to inspect breaches of workplace laws.

In the Bechtel decision, Fair Work commissioner Susan Booth ruled that the MUA was entitled to enter the construction site to meet members, even if it represented just one employee engaged on the site.

Bechtel argued that excavators working on the island were not performing “waterside work” and as such, the union had no entitlement to enter.

“There is sometimes little or no excavation work to be performed on the wharf; that work is only about 60 per cent of time [and] when excavator operators are not on the barge, they may perform roadwork . . . that is clearly not waterside work,” Bechtel’s lawyers argued.

But Ms Booth ruled that while the riggers, mooring master and operators of self-propelled transporters were not capable of being represented by the MUA, excavator operators could be.

“There was evidence ... that the work of an excavator operator is no different whether it is on the land or on a barge. However this is not the pointThe work is unloading aggregate from barges at a wharf. That places the work in the marine environment,” she ruled.

“Indeed, it seems that the employer is mindful of the marine environment. Advertisements for crane operators that were brought to the Commission’s attention made reference to experience around the marine environment being viewed in high regard,” Ms Booth concluded.

The AMMA’s Mr Knott said there was good chance the company would appeal the Commission’s decision.

“The company is closely reviewing the decision and it is highly probable that it will be subject to appeal,” he said.